Critica Commentary is a place for discussion of all things related to denial of scientific evidence and health and science literacy. Here you will find longer pieces about particular topics, such as medical misdiagnosis and conflicts of interest, as well as interviews with key people working at the intersection of health policy, science journalism, science education, and psychology, among other fields. You may also find guest posts by authorities in the field as well as by people with fascinating stories to share and analyses of recent news articles, studies, and current events. If you are interested in writing something for Critica, please contact us here.
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- September 2016
- January 2016
September 24, 2018 | CommentsContinue Reading ➝
Editor’s Note: Dr. Lauren Kantor Gorman is a New York City psychiatrist, mother of Critica co-founder Sara Gorman and wife of Critica co-founder Jack Gorman. What happens when scientists can’t say they are completely sure? On August 1, 2018 the New York Times Magazine took the unusual step of devoting an entire issue to one […]
August 26, 2018 | CommentsContinue Reading ➝
According to the Collins English Dictionary, “If you say that someone shoots from the hip, you mean that they react to situations or give their opinion very quickly, without stopping to think”. With pun fully intended, that is often the way statements are made about firearm-related injuries and deaths in the U.S. Almost no area […]
July 18, 2018 | CommentsContinue Reading ➝
There are few areas of science that attract as much attention by media and its consumers than nutrition. It seems that almost every time a study is published that touts a particular food or diet as having special health benefits, it garners headlines.
One of the few things most of us believe we control is what we eat. That makes it highly attractive to think we can prevent seemingly uncontrollable events like heart disease, cancer, and dementia by choosing the right foods. It is even better when we are told we can do this without ever feeling hungry.
It is not surprising, therefore, that science and the public intersect so frequently around diet and nutrition. Given that we want people to trust science and incorporate it into decisions about personal health and safety, it would seem of critical importance that the nutritional science imparted to the public be trustworthy and reported accurately. We have been following stories about nutritional studies closely because of their potential impact on how non-scientists judge the value of what they hear and read about scientists’ work and findings. Sadly, there are few areas of science as prone to mistakes, misunderstandings, and hype than nutrition.
Topics: Awareness, Concepts & Methods, Health, Journalism, Psychology, Public Health, Science DenialJuly 5, 2018 | CommentsContinue Reading ➝
Reporting science accurately in a way that people understand it and, sometimes alter their beliefs or loyalty to authority, has been a challenge that probably predates Gallileo’s strained but ultimately successful challenge to geocentrism.
June 6, 2018 | CommentsContinue Reading ➝
Whatever month it is now, you’re sure to be surrounded by a number of “awareness” campaigns. How do you get people to take action on a cause? The common response is usually to start by raising awareness. How can people act on something without knowing it’s a problem? The assumption is that once people know […]